Some observations on our new Council and our new Financial Plan

It seems that our new and self-proclaimed transparent Council got off on a shaky footing when they met for their first meeting on Monday, Dec. 12. The old Council ended their term with an in-camera meeting to instigate an injunction against the Occupiers in Diana Krall Plaza. (Why such a move should be made in-camera is beyond me. It’s not as if this action had not been widely touted.) Our new Council began their tenure with an already moved, seconded (and apparently approved) motion to go in-camera that was already reported as such in the agenda!! Talk about fast action. In this case it appeared to precede even the meeting.

It will be instructive to see how transparent our new Council will be. Most, if not all of them, promoted transparency in their runs for office and some even promised to quickly review and reveal the secrets of several of the in-camera decisions of their predecessors, with particular emphasis on the Jerry Berry affair which is apparently now out of covenant in any event, and the case of the City Hall Annex. These first few weeks should set the tone in transparency for the next three years.

In the meantime, Monday’s FPCOW (Finance and Policy Committee of the Whole –the OTHER public Council meeting) meeting gave our brand new Council a preliminary presentation of the 1012-2016 Financial Plan for the City. This plan increases residential rates by 4%, commercial rates by 3% and lowers Industrial rates by 20%, and raises water user rates by 5% and Garbage rates by 6.14%. At that meeting questions were raised about several general budget matters which deserve attention.

First among these was the role that Council played in setting the preliminary Department budgets on which the Financial Plan was based. It appears that Council gave no advice in this matter though it was open to them to request specific parameters, such as: a zero based budget; a zero increase in the budget; an x% increase or decrease in the budget, etc. This ability is perhaps greater in this year than in most as we are currently in negotiation with our major unions. In addition, the study which was undertaken on contracted services which amount to tens of millions of annual expenditures in the City and which was to be completed prior to the recent election has yet to appear.

While the presentation pointed to some $81.4 million in Major Capital Projects related to Water during this period and a further $23.9 million in Ongoing Programs related to Water, a question elicited the response that the City’s policy of not providing water to agencies outside the City has been overturned by an agreement on “emergency” water for Lantzville and that there has apparently been no policy development in dealing with the supply of water to the cruise ship industry or directly to Lantzville, both of which have apparently been requested and run up the flagpole by our mayor. It should be further noted that the above figures do not include the circa $75 million which is proposed for a new dam in the next decade. A policy in this area is urgently required as new requests from other of our regional neighbours can be expected to follow, particularly if either or both of these requests are granted.

Share this:

Related

18 Comments

David Brown December 16, 2011

Although the new council was not voted in as a slate, it will, as a whole, have fairly defined characteristics. It will a) be respectful of administration, b) spending oriented and c) unimaginative. Already the City Manager has another spending proposal ready for them; namely, an internal auditor who will have a salary in the $150,000.00 plus range but will actually cost far more. Internal auditing unfortunately does not lead to cost cutting but rather to cost justification. The new guy or gal will be expected to be a member of the management team and will certainly not be proposing any cutbacks to that team. What “savings” proposals that will come out of the office will mostly be cutting back on front office positions and raising fees paid by the public for the various services which it has already paid for with its taxes.

Diane Brennan proposes that instead of hiring an auditor that the City hire a PR person supposedly to satisfy the public “demand” for more and better information. PR people, however, do not increase transparency; their function is to present the information in a prettier package or put less nicely to put a favourable spin on it. Council will end up compromising by HIRING BOTH an internal auditor and a PR person.

As the bills come in for various grand projects and Conference Centre losses mount, Nanaimo will be facing annual tax increases greater than 4%. Here is a prediction (keep it so you can tell me that I was all wet): ten years from now the growth projections for Nanaimo and Region will not have come to pass and the City and its residents will be burdened by an overly expanded infrastructure. Property taxes and user fees will be approximately fifty per cent higher and payability will have become a real issue for many individuals and businesses.

Jim; great question. I am totally boggled by this. I fear my head is going to explode before we find a solution.

To my mind engaging people on these points should not be difficult.

We have an electorate that is facing a 25% increase in property taxes in the next five years, plus a similar increase in their utility bills, and they are sitting around with one finger up their nose and another up their bum. What the fuck is going on with people? Somebody should be really mad about this.

Are Nanaimoites the kind of people you can feed shit to, because they are too fucking stupid to realize that they’re eating shit? Or are they just fine with eating shit. Either this is some mass coma or some sick hysteria.

The response to a question at last Monday’s FPCOW (Finance and Policy Committee of the Whole which consists of all Councillors), showed that Council has very little to do with budget setting as that document was prepared by Staff without the benefit of any major input from Council regarding the parameters to be used in its preparation, e.g. a zero based budget, a zero increase of a budget reduction.or a reduced budget. This strategy, of course, makes any serious budget action, a rear guard action, which follows rather than leads Staff’s budget activities. The budget recommended by Staff for Council’s belated consideration will be presented at tomorrow’s Council meeting (Monday, Dec. 19 at 7pm) in the Council Chambers at the Conference Centre.

All fine words.
The issue still is who pays ,who does not who wishes to, who does not.
Be it the 1% ers that wish to pay even less or the 99% who hide behind the sustainable farm with the potters wheel in the front room & the half dozen chickens in the
back yard, claiming farm status to avoid taxes ; we all attempt to avoid paying our fair dues!!!
The list is quite endless be it the “we don’t want the riff raff in our area “; to the “we have to have sustainable growth”( an oxymoron if there ever was one.
The truth is ; what is can we realistically accomplish & what we cannot!!

At the council meeting, disatisfaction with the committee selection process for councillors and to top it off adding even more councillors to PNAC, SPAC & SAFER. If we have committees and advisory groups they need to have a level of independence from council not more council driven personal agendas.

If only Ruttan would look at applying this comment, “If it’s unbiased, we will get some objective ideas”, to committees. From this story in the bulletin http://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news/135964213.html about hiring a consultant to guide the city in a strategic plan.

Lets see thats an Auditor, Consultant and as David says likely a PR person as well. Makes one wonder why we have a city council. Seem to remember someone calling the last council ‘lame duck’, this one has been eaten and regurgitated.

Huge discrepancies are not unusual in the bureaucratic sense of dispassionate forecasting depending upon whose ox is gored.

@ David Brown: “ Already the City Manager has another spending proposal ready for them; namely, an internal auditor who will have a salary in the $150,000.00 plus range but will actually cost far more.”

The City Manager has been given, sotto voce, or unwittingly, permission to hire another respected consultant, or in-house person.

Management may be impartial but subjectivity is a very managerial characteristic when decisions turn on one’s own bread and butter.

Let me see if I am understanding this correctly…The last city council objected to the idea of an independent core services review because we could not afford the expected 150K price tag.(Should be done ever 6 years in my opinion)

Now we are talking about hiring a “lame duck” internal auditor and a “Spin Doctor” at the cost of almost $2 million every six years?

Someone just offered to rent me a 1750 Sq.Ft house in Hammond Bay for $800.00 per month! If we don’t get a handle on the severe “entitlement disorder” that is affecting this city, we are going to be in some serious trouble. Where are the good jobs and young families that will be able to purchase the $500K+ homes when seniors decide to downsize because they can’t afford to pay the taxes?

I just read the five year plan and although well presented and informative – wholly shit! Is that sustainable? Judging by the reported family income and projected increases and add to that user increases across the board and a potential increase in interest rates down the road, I have to wonder how are home owners, and those that rent going to afford to have a roof over their head?

Between adding a new annex and staffing, I mean is there anything left for roads, sewers and water?

At what point do taxpayers say, er, sorry, but I just can’t do it

We need a law that says that property taxes should not exceed 3% of one’s gross income.

People afford their mortgage or rent here by having 2 or 3 jobs. Then the people that need one job because they don’t have any job to go to can’t get one.

As far as an internal auditor goes. First off you should not have to pay them 150,0000K. Second if they are a good auditor, they could infact save the city money. There are auditors that not only look at the books but also audit how the business is done, they also look at the systems, are they running in the most economic ways. So auditors are not bad.
As far as the PR person, I don’t think Nanaimo needs one right now. If we can’t get any business in here we never will. And yes I think the city will want to only put their spin on things, hence the PR person.
Someone needs to have the balls on council to get the others to agree to get someone in and take a good review of how the city is run. Again this person would be independent of Senior Management. City council needs to start earning their new salary increase.

Got any suggestions who would be qualified to conduct such an audit and what the cost might actually be?? Are there any who do pro bono work for a good civic cause???

I would be delighted to have a business lawyer-type pass an opinion on the contract the city has with the company running (and I do me RUNNING) the convention centre, sadly I can’t afford $20,000 for his opinion.

I have a good friend that is an internal auditor but sadly I have to say he is not in this province and still working fulltime. Him I would trust.
Again I also know a good business laawyer but he also is in another province. I don’t know that he would charge 20,000. but I do believe he would charge. Do you have a copy of the agreement??
I wish it was that simple just to send someone in but you of course know that the City Manager would not allow this.

If some ‘concerend citizens’ were to foot the bill for such an examination, the city mgr. might have a hard time explaining his opposition.
I have a copy of the agreement with the VICC, if you want to email me at admin@NanaimoBlog.com I can send you a pdf copy.